Zobel said:

---

no one has that lens as an individual.

---

You are correct. That is why terms like Calvinism, Lutheran, and Wesleyism bother me. They are just men who have rendered their interpretation of Scripture.

So how do you go about actually critically thinking through what the Church is interpreting? Can they ever be wrong? Do we just take what the Church says without ever questioning it? Can the Church ever have blinders on so that they cannot see certain errors?

It's a short read and very good. He answers a lot of this.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm

I thank you for the history lesson, but as a guide it's a bit of circular reasoning. Person in communion develops a doctrine, church condemns the doctrine, person becomes heretic, and suddenly doctrine was developed by someone outside the church. It's very after the fact. Most ancient heresies started as controversies between people that were in good standing with the church. Each side attracted followings of people in good standing, and conflict arose. Sometimes both sides are full of innovations, like the Augustus v Pelagius feud. So I don't see that this St Vincent helps us spy out heresy prior to the declaration of such. There is nothing that tells us which side will be declared orthodox and which heretical until the church makes the decision.

i think it is always done in hindsight. post-facto reasoning isn't circular though, as long as we also have faith that the Holy Spirit continues to guide, animate, lead the church.

with that in mind, looking back is a pretty good guide when looking forward.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

So how do you go about actually critically thinking through what the Church is interpreting? Can they ever be wrong? Do we just take what the Church says without ever questioning it? Can the Church ever have blinders on so that they cannot see certain errors?

---

Good questions. I will make a good faith attempt to try to answer, but there are probably Catholic posters who can do a better job of explaining this than me.

Let me start by saying that understanding the Church's magisterial authority is not a simple task. I don't pretend to fully understand all the nuances and interractions of the authority that the Church possesses and how it uses that authority. However, if we just stay at a high level, there is generally the concept that the authority that the Church possesses is given to it by Jesus Christ (Matt 16:19 and Matt 28:18-20). The term magisterium is based on the Latin word for "teacher" (magister). The Magisterium is the term used to refer to those who exercise this teaching authority, in other words, to the pope and the bishops teaching in union with him. The magisterial authority is the teaching authority given to it by Jesus Christ, exercised through the Magisterium, which consists of the bishops in union with the pope (the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth: 1 Tim. 3:15). Magisterial or teaching authority includes authorities such as ecumenical councils (Acts 15) and ex cathedra pronouncements by a Pope (Matt 16:16-19).

A biblical basis for the Church's teaching authority is found in the Great Commission as it was given by Jesus to the apostles: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:19-20). This authority distinguishes between opinion and doctrine, where doctrine carries an obligation for believers to adhere to it. Church teachings are always in harmony with although not solely derived from, Scripture and are interpreted and taught by the Magisterium. Unlike the Protestant doctrine of perspicuity, which suggests Scripture is clear for individual interpretation, the Catholic Church maintains that understanding Scripture requires guidance from the Magisterium to avoid doctrinal confusion and fragmentation. This ensures unity and consistency in the Church's teachings, something which history supports.

The Magisterium consists of the "ordinary magisterium", which refers to the ordinary teaching of the popes and bishops as they conduct their ministry. However, sometimes they teach in an especially solemn way that is referred to as an act of the "extraordinary magisterium." In the case of popes, this term is reserved only for the relatively rare instances when a pope infallibly defines a truth (ex cathedra or from the chair). All other instances of papal teaching are termed "ordinary."

The term "extraordinary magisterium" is also used for ecumenical councils. Individual bishops are not capable of exercising the Church's extraordinary magisterium. All of their teachings, by necessity, belong to its ordinary magisterium.

Having said all that, to answer your questions, I don't hesitate to critically think through or question what the Church is interpreting and teaching. I don't hesitate to respectfully disagree with the Church when my conscience, hopefully well-formed, leads me to do so. But, there comes a point where once the Church has formally taught something or defined some point of doctrine or a Pope has made an ex cathedra pronouncement, then I submit to the Church's authority because it is Jesus Christ's church and he gave it the authority to do exactly that.

For example, let's look at the Immaculate Conception of Mary. This is something that was believed and taught by many, although not all bishops in the universal church for centuries before it was formally defined. St. Thomas Aquinas for example in the 13th century actually held a position on the Immaculate Conception of Mary different than what was formally pronounced by Pope Pius IX in the 1854. So, it was something that was commonly debated and discussed and there were different positions, but after more than 1,500 years of "undefinition" it was finally and formally declared in 1854. Up until that point, faithful Catholics were free to believe what their well-formed conscience told them to believe. But once it was formally pronounced, the debate was over, "Peter has spoken." Mary was Immaculately Conceived. Period.

The Church is made up of fallible human beings. It can be wrong on some things but never in the exercise of its magisterial authority. To believe otherwise is to call Jesus Christ a liar. The Church has had and still has bad actors, including several popes who have held bad positions or done things that were not consistent with Christian morality. But the Church has NEVER formally exercised its magisterial authority in error.

Let me add that all this requires a certain amount of humility. We all like to think that we are smart and well-intended or clear-minded or guided by the Holy Spirit. It takes a genuinely humble soul to say "I submit to your authority", keeping in mind that in this case, the authority is the authority delegated by God to his Church.

Thanks for taking the time to explain.

Thanks for that. Hasn't the Pope only used ex cathedral twice in the hundred years?

dermdoc said:

---

Thanks for that. Hasn't the Pope only used ex cathedral twice in the hundred years?

---

I think so.

Based on the definition of what it takes to qualify for an ex cathedra pronouncement set forth by Vatican I, there have been two ex cathedra pronouncements in the history of the Catholic Church. The first was the Immaculate Conception of Mary, defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. The second was the Assumption of Mary, defined by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950. These pronouncements meet the criteria set by Vatican I for papal infallibility, which requires the pope to speak ex cathedra, intending to define a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church (Pastor Aeternus 4).

The most recent was when Pope Pius XII solemnly defined the dogma of the Assumption of Our Lady into heaven. And this would really be a doctrine taught ex cathedra as contained in the deposit of faith.
Even so, the requirements for ex cathedra or extraordinary exercise of the Magisterium and the requirements for infallible teaching are not exactly the same. There can be teachings that are taught infallibly but are not presented in an extraordinary form of definition. The chief example of this would be St. John Paul II's declaration on the ordination of women to the priesthood Ordinatio Sacerdotalis on May 22, 1994:

Quote:

---

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

---

It is clear that here the pope is using his full authority and intends for his declaration to be definitive. He thus fulfills all the requirements for a dogmatic definition, even though his instruction was not announced as such.

Christ is the ultimate authority, not scripture. That should be a very easy statement to make with universal agreement. Christ is the head and high priest, and the church is his body made up of the episcopate and believers.

Knowing that he would be sacrificed, Christ passed his earthly authority to St Peter, by giving him the keys to the kingdom, and charged him to "feed his sheep" in his absence.

In keeping with this mission, the church has compiled and canonized scripture, as well as fought against heresies that come from individual interpretation of scripture outside the bounds of the Holy Spirit guided revelation that we call "the magisterium".

So essentially scripture is not the ultimate authority, Christ is. Christ gave us a Church, whom God used to canonize scripture.